


PROCEEDINGS 



mi sf 




Ol^ BALTIMORE, 



IN REFERENCE TO THE USE OF THE HISTORY OF 
MARYLAND IN THE SCHOOLS, 



From September, 1876, to June, 1877. 



BALTIMORE: 

KELLY, PIET & CO., PRINTERS, 

174 W. Baltimore Strkkt. 

1877. 



PROCEEDINGS 



%iii of 



'^ 



Ifll 



iMis w^^% 



OF BALTIMORE, 



IN REFERENCE TO THE USE OF THE HISTORY OF 
MARYLAND IN THE SCHOOLS, 



From September, 1876, to June, 1877. 




BALTIMORE: 

KELLY, PIET & CO., PRINTERS, 

]74 W. BALTIMORE Street. 

1877. 



i^z 



OFFICE OF THE 

COMMISSIONERS OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS, 

Baltimore, June 5th, 1877, 

At a meeting of the Board on this date, Mr. Phelps offered 
the following, which was adopted : 

"Resolved, That the recent proceedings of the Board on the 
subject of the History of Maryland, including the several re- 
solutions and reports relating thereto, since September, 1876, 
be printed for the use of the Board under the direction of the 
Committee on Printing." 

December 5th, 1876, Mr. Plaskitt offered the following : 

'^Resolved, That a portion of the History of the State of 
Maryland be read in the Grammar Schools every day, so that 
the children may learn something of the history of their native 
State." 

December 12th, the above resolution being under considera- 
tion, Mr. Plaskitt said : 

Mr. President : — In connection with the resolution which 
I offered at the last meeting of this Board, the spirit of which 
seemed to be misapprehended by some of the members, I desire 
to offer a few words of explanation. As a citizen, and mem- 
ber of the Board, I have always felt a degree of pride in the 
history of my native State. I know of no State of our Union 
whose record is more honorable, and I know of none of which 
her citizens are less proud. Take Massachusetts, and you will 
find every man, woman and child, not only familiar with mat- 
ters of its own history, but lauding to the third heaven 
everything pertaining to its past, its present, its future. New 
York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, even little Delaware, and every 
other State, save Maryland, has a local pride in her history, a 
faith in her influence and ])restige that puts to blush our lack 
of a just proclamation to all of our State's merits. 

Let our rising generation be educated as to what our fathers 
have done, achieved and suffered for, that they may appreciate 
and honor their lives, and aim to achieve in their day and gen- 
eration something for which their names may be inscribed 
upon our roll of honored men, for nothing is more calculated 
to teach admiration, love and fealty to our institutions than 
familiarity with them, and at the same ratio of historical neg- 



lect in education, it will take but another generation to forget 
that we ever had a Key, to write the Star Spangled Banner ; 
a McComas, who saved Baltimore; a six gun battery; a Bla- 
densburg; a Charles Carroll, of Carrollton ; and the gallant 
Howard, of Cowpens; and many others of the old Maryland 
Line who never knew such word as fail ; or even any history 
Avhatever, and now only preserved in homoeopathic doses. 
Let whatever little is left be instilled into the youth, and as 
our State and city may have a great future, let there be incul- 
cated a respect for home — cherished memories of her past and 
hopes for her future — for as you intensify the admiration for 
your State, you foster encouragement for her prosperity and 
.stimulate to action the elements of her material wealth. 

I therefore trust it will accord with the judgment of this 
Board to embrace permanently within its schedule of studies 
this compendium of our State history. 

The resolution was referred to the Committee on Books, on 
motion of Mr, Bayly. 

December 19th. A communication from John Murphy & 
Co., on McSherry^s Histot^y of Maryland, was referred to the 
Committee on Books. 

Same date. Mr. Weatherby offered the following : 

^'Jiesolved, That the History and Constitution of Maryland 
be made an examination study in the Public Schools of our 
City, and that hereafter all candidates for admission to the 
Female High Schools and Baltimore City College be required 
to pass a satisfactory examination in them ; and that the 
teachers in the several schools be notified of this action of the 
Board ; and that the Book Committee be instructed to furnish 
such text-books as are provided for in the scliedule." 

Mr. Bayly moved to amend to include also the History and 
Constitution of the United States. 

The amendment was accepted. 

Mr. Hamel moved that the order shall not go into effect 
until after the 10th of February next. 

Mr. Bayly moved that the matter be referred to the Com- 
mittee on Examinations, with instructions to report at the 
next meeting of the Board. 

The motion was adopted. 

January 2d, 1877. Mr. Hendcrsofi, from the Committee on 
Examinations, reported the following resolutions. 

(Signed) James A. Henderson, 
John A. Wright, 

AV^M. P. TONRY, 

H. E. Shepherd. 



"Resolved, That the History of Maryland and the History 
of the United States be placed on tlie list of studies required 
for the examination of applicants for the position of Second 
Assistants in Primary and Grammar Schools. 

"JResoIved, That this committee recommend the adoption of 
the resolution of this Board of December 19th, in reference to 
History, with the amendment that the time now given to 
Algebra be given to History, and that History be made an 
examination study only in the first grade of the Male Grammar 
Schools, and that it be read in the other grades referred to in 
the 128 of the Rules of Order of this Board." • 

Laid over under the rule. 

Same date. Mr. Poe offered the following: 

"Hesolved, That the report of the Committee on Examina- 
tions, presented this evening, be made the special order for 
Tuesday, 16th instant." Adopted. 

January IGth, 1877. Mr. Phelps presented communication 
from Mr. J. T. Scharf and Turnbull Bros., proposing to pub- 
lish a History of Maryland, &c., which was referred to the 
Committee on Books. 

Same date. The resolutions, on the study of History, offered 
■by the Committee on Examinations, January 2d, were taken up. 

Mr. Phelps offered the following proviso to be annexed to 
the second resolution. 

" Provided that the compendium of the History of Mary- 
land now on the list be and is hereby referred to the Commit- 
tee on Text-Books for examination as to whether the same 
substantially complies with the requirements of the Act of 
1872, chapter 377, providing that text-books shall contain 
nothing of a sectarian or partisan character, and that until the 
report of said committee shall have been acted upon by the 
Board, the use of said compendium shall not be considered as 
made obligatory by the above resolution." 

Mr. Weatherby offered the following as a substitute : 

^' Resolved, That the History of Maryland be made an 
exercise study for at least one period in every week in all of 
the several grades of the Grammar Schools." 

A division of the question was called for and ordered. 

The question recurring on the first resolution, it was adopted. 

After some discussion, indicating a misunderstanding on the 
part of some of the members concerning the wording of the 
second resolution, on motion of Mr. Poe the matter was re- 
committed. 

January 23d. Mr. Henderson, from the Committee on 
Examinations, submitted the following report : 



6 

*' The Comnnttee on Examinations, to whom was referred 
the subject of tlie study of history m our schools, begs leave 
to present the following resolutions as its report: 

*' Resolved, That the History and Constitution of Maryland 
be made an examination study in the first grade, and be read 
in the second grade of the Male Grammar Schools, and that 
the time now given to Algebra in these two grades be given to 
History. 

" Rcsoh-ed, That the History of Maryland be read in the 
first and second grades of the Female Grammar Schools. 

"Resolved, That the Committee declines to recommend any 
Text Book, believing that matter to belong more properly to 
the Committee on Books. 

"Resolved, That the committee be discharged from the 
further consideration of the subject. 

" (Signed) James A. Henderson, 
" Wm. p. Tonry." 

Same date. Mr. Wright also submitted the following report 
on the subject : 

Report of the Committee on Examinations. 

" Resolved, That the History of Maryland be read three 
times a week in the first and second grades of the Male and 
Female Grammar Schools, accompanied and illustrated by 
comments and explanations. 

"Resolved, That in the judgment of this committee the 

removal of Algebra from the Grammar School curriculum, 

and the substitution of History as an examination study would 

be inexpedient and positively injurious to the Grammar Schools. 

" (Signed) Jno. A. Wright, 

Henry E. Shepherd, 
Henry A. Wise, 
Jno. T. Morris." 

Both reports were laid over under the rule. 

January 30th. Mr. Hamel submitted the following report : 

" To the President and Board of Comm'rs of Public Schools : 

"The Committee on Text Books, to whom was referred the 
resolution offered by the member from the. Ninth Ward look- 
ing to the reading of the History of Maryland daily in the 
Grammar Schools, beg leave to report adversely to the resolution. 
" Inasmuch as the subject has already been reported upon 
by the Committee on Examinations, and will be called u^) for 



action this evening, the committee ask to be discharged from 
the further consideration of the subject. 
" Respectfully submitted. 

" (Signed) Geo. L. Hamel, 
Jno. p. Foe, 
Chas. E. Phelps, 
Jno. T. Morris. 

"Resolved, That the committee be discharged from the 
further consideration of the report." 

Report accepted and resolution adopted. 

Same date. The reports submitted by the Committee on 
Examinations at the last meeting relating to the History of 
Maryland were taken np. (See page ) 

Mr. moved that the report, signed by four members 

of the committee, be adopted. 

' Mr. Phelps moved to amend by annexing to the first reso- 
lution of said report the proviso offered by him January 16tii. 
{See page ) 

Mr. Tonry called for a division of the question that the vote 
on the proviso be taken separately, and it was so ordered. 

The question was called on the adoption of the proviso, and 
it was adopted. 

After some discussion Mr. Hamel called the previous ques- 
tion, and the call was sustained. 

The question then recurred on the adoption of the resolutions 
of the report above mentioned, and they were adopted. 

February 20th. A communication from Messrs. Onderdonk 
and Murphy concerning the History of Maryland was, on 
motion of Mr. Plaskitt, referred to the Committee on Books, 
with instructions to report at the next meeting of the Board. 

February 27th. Mr. Hamel from Committee on Books 
reported progress on the matter referred to them, and would 
be prepared to report at the next meeting of the Board. 

March 6th. Mr. Hamel from the Committee on Books 
submitted the following report: 

The Committee on Text-Books to whom was referred the 
compendium, entitled "A liistori/ of Maryland, upon the basis 
of McSherry, from its settlement to 1867, with illustrations, &c., 
for the use of schools, by Henry Onderdonk, A. M.,'^ published 
by John Murphy & Co., with instructions to inquire and report 
whether the same is in conformity with the Act of 1872, chap- 
ter 377, which confers power upon the Board of Commissioners 
of Public Schools of Baltimore City, " to select text-books for 
the schools of said city; provided such text-books shall con- 



8 

tain nothing of a sectarian or partisan character," respectfully 
report : 

That after a careful examination of the work, particularly 
that portion of it from chapters 26 to 35, inclusive, of the 
edition of 1872, which in its present form has never been 
adopted by the Board, the committee lind that the compendium 
in question does contain, in that part of it referred to, matter 
of a partisan character within the letter and spirit of the Act 
of 1872, chapter 377, and that the former edition of 1868, in 
that part of it from page 243 to page 251, inclusive, is open to 
the same objection. 

The committee further state that, when the edition of 1868 
was under consideration by a former Board, its admission was 
objected to upon the ground now stated and other grounds, and 
after considerable controversy the work was admitted by a 
vote of less than a majority of the Board. 

Another work, covering in a measure the same ground, was 
about the same time admitted into competition with it, and 
after a brief struggle, Creery's Catechism of History almost 
entirely superseded Onderdonk's Compendium, which, although 
nominally (the edition of 1868) on the list of books, has been 
for some years disused in the schools. Experience has proved 
that while the work was used in the schools, its effect was to 
stir up political dissensions among the pupils, and cause dis- 
satisfaction to numbers of their parents and friends. 

Since this subject has been pending before the committee, 
two communications have been referred to it, one from Col. 
Scharf, author of the Chronicles of Baltimore, offering for 
adoption a History of Maryland now in preparation by him, 
under the patronage of the Legislature of the State, and one 
from Mr. Onderdonk and Mr. Murphy jointly, offering to re- 
vise the Compendium in question, and issue a new edition for 
the use of the schools. 

The committee arc of opinion that it would be premature 
and inexpedient to attempt to decide in advance between the 
two contemplated publications, and that such decision can only 
be properly made when they shall have been so far advanced 
towards completion as to enable an intelligent judgment to be 
l)assed upon their comparative merits. 

Respectfully submitted, Geo. L. Hamel, 

John P. Poe, 
Ch. E. Phelps, 
John T. Morris, 
Henry E. Shepherd, 
Wm. p. Tonry. 



9 

Resolved, That the Committee on Text-Books be and they 
are hereby authorized to take such steps as in their judgment 
may be necessary to secure the presentation to the Board at 
the earliest moment,- of a School History of Maryland, which 
will be in conformity with the provisions of the Act of 1872, 
chapter 377, and be suitable in other respects for use in our 
Public Schools. 

Same date. Mr. Phelps presented the following : 
The undersigned minority of the Committee on Text Books, 
to whom was referred the Compendium entitled "J. History of 
Maryland, upon the basis of McSherry from its settlement to 
1867, with illustrations, &c,, for the use of schools, by Henry 
Onderdonk, A. M ," published by John Murphy & Co., with 
instructions to inquire and report whether the same substan- 
tially complies with the Act of 1872, chapter 377, agreeing in 
the main with the conclusions reported by the majority of the 
committee, respectfully reports the following as the reasons 
which have led him to concur in those conclusions : 

The public school system exists for the equal benefit of all. 
It is supported by taxation, levied indiscriminately upon citi- 
zens of all classes, creeds, and parties in the community. 
Hence, all citizens of all schools of opinion upon controverted 
subjects are equally entitled to participate in its benefits, with- 
out priority or preference, without invidious distinctions, and 
without partiality towards, or prejudice against, any class or 
party of law-abiding citizens in the community. 

The Act of 1872, ch. 377, confers power upon the Board of 
Commissioners of Public Schools of Baltimore City "to select 
text-books for the schools of said city, provided such text- 
books shall contain nothing of a sectarian or partisan character." 

Chapter 16, Sec. 2. The plain language of the statute set- 
tles beyond all doubt the following propositions : 

1. The power of the Board to select books is conditioned 
upon the selection of a certain class of books, namely — those 
which contain nothing of the character indicated; so that the 
selection of any book which does not belong to this class is an 
unlaivful exercise of power. 

2. The law does not contemplate that a book, in order to be 
excluded from the power of selection by the Board, should be 
both sectarian and partisan. It is enough if it be either the 
one or the other. 

3. The law docs not mean that such a book should be obnox- 
ious throughout its entire contents to be excluded. It is 



10 

enough if the book 13 found to contain anythhig which may 
reasonably be characterized as either sectarian or partisan. 

As to the definition of these terras there can be no mistake. 
The only difficulty is in the application of them to any par- 
ticular subject matter. 

Generally speaking, all will admit that a book contains sec- 
tarian or partisan matter when it uses language which evinces 
a manifest bias towards, or prejudice against, any particular 
school of controverted religious or political opinion. 

It so happens, however, that there are no subjects of general 
concern so peculiarly calculated to arouse human feelings, enlist 
sympathies, excite passions, and awaken prejudices, as questions 
connected with religion and politics. 

Hence, it is often found difficult to get two men of equal 
intelligence, but of discordant creeds or hostile parties, to 
agree in pronouncing a given proposition to be either sectarian 
or partisan, when that proposition entirely accords with the 
pecular sentiments of one of them. Persons under the influ- 
ence of these feelings are often absolutely unable to perceive 
that which to all others may be perfectly apparent. There is 
nothing more common in such cases than the almost uncon- 
scious resort to a species of fallacy known as the irrelevant 
conclusion. The individual denies that the proposition is 
sectarian, for instance, because it is true, or he denies that it is 
partisan because it is true, whereas the abstract truth or falsity 
of the given proposition is not the question at issue, but sim- 
ply this, whether the proposition in question, be it true or 
false, is not a proposition which embodies some distinctive 
dogma of a theological school, or some distinctive principle of 
a political party. It may be taken for granted that all relig- 
ious professors or adherents of party implicitly receive as 
unimpeachable truths the distinctive dogmas or principles 
which are the symbols of the faith or the badges of the cause 
to which they respectively adhere. It is exactly at the points 
where these dogmas or these principles conflict that sectarian- 
ism and partisanship come in. Hence, it is clearly not a 
satisfactory defence against the charge of sectarianism or par- 
tisanship to allege that the matter in question is true, when 
the truth of the matter is the very point at issue between con- 
flicting sects or factions. The defence, to be an adequate one, 
must go one step farther, and be able to show that not only is 
the matter in question true, but its truth is universally, or at 
least generally, conceded by all classes of the community, 
without distinction of sect or party. 



11 

It will be observed that the foregoing principles are appli- 
cable only to simple propositions, or isolated statements of a 
distinct single fact or opinion. But inasmuch as every writing 
professing an historical character is designed to produce a series 
of effects or impressions upon the mind of the reader, and as 
each of these impressions is in turn created by the aggregate 
etiect as a whole of a series of facts or statements connected 
together by some definite and preconceived plan of selection 
and arrangement existing in the author's mind, the question of 
bias as respects such a writing is obviously not limited -to the 
consideration of each individual fact or statement of the series, 
as so many distinct and isolated propositions, but extends to 
the whole drift and tenor of the completed narration, to the 
impression evidently sought to be produced by it as a whole, 
and to the tone and coloring imparted to it by means of the 
important processes of selection, omission and arrangement. 

That this is true, must be apparent from the office and func- 
tion of history, which is to marshal tlie procession of events 
not only in the order of time, but in the order of importance, 
and to discriminate between events and circumstances which 
are important, and those which are trivial and insignificant. 
Obviously, the historian must absolutely reject a vast mass of 
detail in respect to which, however, the public may be said in 
some sense to have an interest. These form the material for 
history, and in the selection and arrangement of his material 
begins the office of the historian, and with selection and 
arrangement it may also be said to end, for with the mere 
matter of style we are not concerned. 

But selection and arrangement imply a preconceived plan or 
method, a principle and a jjurpose, existing in the mind of the 
author. The method may be judicial or it may be forensic. 
If the method be one of cold, severe, judicial indifference, and 
be worked out consistently and with intelligence, the result 
will be an impartial history. If the method be forensic, that is, 
with the intent to array evidence in support of a tiieory or of 
a cause, the result cannot possibly be an impartial history, but 
must of necessity be a biased document. And this will be 
none the less true, notwithstanding the fact that each and every 
item of the mass of evidence so arrayed may be absolutely and 
independently true. It may not contain the whole truth. It 
presents but a part of the case. The otlier side has yet to be 
heard. 

To determine, therefore, whether a given historical writing 
is an impartial or a one-sided history, reference must be made 



12 

not only to what it contains, but to what it omits. The ques- 
tion is, upon what principle has the author selected out of a 
mass of iacts some particular facts and rejected others. If 
upon inspection of the rejected facts they appear to be of that 
trivial and insignificant character which manifestly does not 
deserve preservation, then the silence of the book respecting 
them will be a justifiable omission, and not a suppression. 

But, if, on the other hand, upon looking outside the work^ 
it is discovered that testimony has been omitted which includes 
a considerable number of circumstances quite as prominent 
and characteristic as many of those inserted, and the essential 
character of the omitted facts is to qualify or supplement the 
recorded facts, and that to such a degree that a fair impression 
of the whole case cannot be made in their absence, then you at 
once detect in this discovery one of the most infallible proofs 
of bias in the writer. He is found availing himself of the his- 
torian's privilege of selection in order to make up a brief. His 
idea of a prominent fact is found to be a fact that makes for 
his side, and a fact that makes against his side is to him an 
insignificant fact. 

When facts are too notorious to be easily suppressed, much 
the same effect may be produced by judicious arrangement. 

Arrangement is to history what perspective is to the graphic 
art. The prominent events and characters are brought to the 
front and centre, the subordinate events and characters are 
grouped around the leading ones, or shaded off* into the back- 
ground. A biased writer may thus include every incident of 
any moment, and may yet so contrive to bring every fact that 
supports his favorite theory into the foreground in bold relief, 
and every fact that makes against it into the background or in 
the shade, as to create the impression he desires. There is in 
a French picture gallery a piece professing to represent the 
surrender of Cornwallis, which makes the Count Rochambeau 
the principal figure. Washington is there, but he is assigned 
a subordinate position. An effect precisely similar may be, 
and often is, produced by a like judicious arrangement by the 
partial historian. 

In writings professedly argumentative or controversial, there 
is of course no attempt to disguise the prepossession of the 
writer. His position as an advocate is perfectly understood 
from the outset, he makes no professions, either express or 
tacit, of judicial indifference, and his arguments are addressed 
to a tribunal or to a public equally accessible to the opposing 
champions, and supposed to be perfectly competent to make all 



13 

necessary allowances for the known bias of eitlipr, and to decide 
the points at issue between them upon the merits of the whole 
<!ase, and the just balance of all the testimony adduced on both 
sides. 

On the other hand, a writing professing to be a history, and 
particularly such a compendium as to be adapted to the use of 
schools, if })repared for the purpose of advocating a cause, 
whether that be the main object or merely incidental, will of 
necessity avoid all direct professions of partisanship, and dis- 
guise or attempt to disguise party spirit under an appearance 
of candor, and this even without intentional bad faith on the 
part of the zealous writer, who is himself probably the person 
first imposed upon by the device. So far from being a lit- 
erary phenomenon, nothing in literature is more common than 
a decided bias in a professedly impartial work, veiled under a 
thin gauze of candor. 

The author of the essay on the " Conduct of the Under- 
standing" says : 

"It is very hard to meet with any discourse wherein one 
may not perceive the author not only maintain (for that is rea- 
sonable and fit), but inclined and biased to one side of the 
question, with marks of a desire that that should be true." 

And then, after exposing some of the devices resorted to in 
such cases, he adds : 

" This is plain and direct sophistry, but I am far from think- 
ing that wherever it is found it is made use of with design to 
deceive and mislead the reader. It is visible that men's pre- 
judices and inclinations by this way impose often upon them- 
selves, and their affection for truth, under their })repossession, 
in favor of one side, is the very thing that leads them from it." 

Before proceeding to apply the foregoing principles to the 
particular book, it is necessary to settle a preliminary question, 
and that is, whether the principle of the Constitutional right 
of a State to withdraw from the Union, or in other words, the 
doctrine of secession, is a partisan doctrine within the terms 
and meaning of the act of 1872, ch. 377. It will then be 
considered whether the work necessarily inculcates that doc- 
trine. 

The question, it will be observed, is not whether the doctrine 
of secession be correct or not as an abstract constitutional ques- 
tion, either at the present or at any former time. Upon that 
question, men may honestly diilcr now, as they have differed 
heretofore, without reference to the issue now made, which is 
simply whether the doctrine of the right of secession is or is 



14 

not in the sense of the law a distinctively partisan doctrine. 
It it important that this distinction be kept closely in sight, 
since upon it the whole question will turn. 

Nor is it necessary for any purpose now in view to consider 
the question in its sectional aspect, as one upon which parties 
have in the past been arrayed geographically, or to decide 
whether in the meaning of the law, a principle becomes any 
the less partisan because also sectional. So far as concerns the 
subject in hand, the range of observation may be limited to 
the City of Baltimore, or perhaps extended to the State of 
Maryland. And properly so, in any view of the case, since, 
even regarding the question in its sectional aspect, the line 
which divided the sections did not run outside of this City and 
State, but ran directly through the heart of both. In fact the 
line of separation, in its passage through this community, ceased 
to be a physical, territorial line, and became in the strictest 
sense political, dividing not only parties, but rupturing churches, 
society and even families. 

If the doctrine of secession had been held in common by all 
classes of the tax paying community which supports the public 
school system, then the question whether it would be lawful 
and right to inculcate that doctrine through the agency of that 
system, would be an altogether different question from that 
now presented. 

But if the principle were advocated by one party of that 
community and opposed by another, then the principle wa& 
distinctively partisan within the meaning of the law, and any 
text-book found to inculcate it is an unlawful text-book in the 
Public Schools of Baltimore. 

As a matter of fact, it is sufficiently notorious that during 
the entire period of the civil war this community was divided 
in sentiment upon that identical issue. Old party lines were 
for the time obliterated, all other issues forgotten, and the two 
great parties which confronted each other in this city and 
throughout the State, were the parties which affirmed on the 
one side and denied on the other the validity of the very doe- 
trine in question. 

Parties were thus divided not only in point of opinion, as- 
to the right or wrong of secession as a question of law, but 
upon nearly all essential matters of fact connected with it.. 
They differed upon even the fundamental facts which were 
averred in justification or in condemnation of it. There wasf 
the like difference in this State as to the numbers of people 
who respectively took sides upon these questions. Each party 



15 

claimed that it was tiic jieoplc. There was also a difference 
of opinion upon each military or political transaction as it 
occurred. One party denounced as an outrage what the other 
party applauded as an act of self-defence. And up to the pre- 
sent time, no tribunal has been clothed with jurisdiction to 
settle these disputes as between these parties. They still re- 
main open and controverted questions. In one sense, the mere 
result of the war may be said to have determined the main 
question practically. But the result of the M'ar could not 
change the minds of men upon a question of constitutional 
law, or upon a question of fact, or upon a question of mixed 
fact and opinion upon any matter arising during the contest. 

Men differ upon many of these questions to-day just as 
radically as they differed at the time they were fresh and liv- 
ing issues. 

Whoever stirs up these controverted questions, brushes off 
the dust now beginning to settle over them, revives the emo- 
tions that belonged to them, still lingering in the memories of 
V he men who acted, fought, sympathized or suffered, and does this 
Avith the spirit of a zealot, may be sure of exciting in others 
the same spirit, and will again array against each other in the 
attitude of useless and senseless controversy men who, from 
the change of times and issues, are no longer really hostile, 
and who may be to-day working harmoniously together under 
a common name for common objects. 

And such an agitation at the present day will not simply 
be a useless and senseless controversy, but positively mischiev- 
ous, as fanning into flame the smouldering embers of civil 
strife, provoking mutual crimination and recrimination, tear- 
ing open wounds now well nigh healed, but still sore and 
tender, and, worse than all, perpetuating those embittered and 
rancorous resentments under cover of which incendiaries scatter 
their fire-brands, demagogues make their most dangerous ex- 
periments upon the peace of society, and corrupt men rob the 
public, and by means of which good and true men find their 
efforts in the direction of fraternal reconciliation and public 
honesty continually thwarted and baffled. 

Mischiefs such as these the law has wisely endeavored to 
guard against by enacting its prohibition against the introduc- 
tion into the public schools of any writings whose tendency is 
to make those schools seminaries of political agitation. The 
law contemplates a public education of youth absolutely free 
from any attempt to control political as well as religious pro- 



16 

clivities. The children are left to find their political bias 
where they get their sectarian training at — home. 

Tested by these principles, it may be regarded as too clear 
for controversy, that the abstract question of the right of seces- 
sion, and the entire class of controverted questions of opinion, 
law and fact, connected with it, are essentially and distinctively 
partisan, within the letter and spirit of the law. The fact that 
the principle of secession is no longer professed as such by any 
existing party, either State or national, can hardly be relied on 
to relieve the principle of its partisan character in any sense 
requisite to justify under the law its inculcation through the 
agency of the public school system. 

After once determining upon the character of the principles 
applicable to the inquiry directed by the Board, it is not diffi- 
cult to apply those principles to the work in question, and 
particularly to the concluding chapters 26 to 35, inclusive, 
covering the entire period of the civil war. 

On page 226, Sec. 2 of Ch. 26, the "right of separation 
from the Union" is first brought into notice as a right which 
had been " asserted and exercised," the fundamental facts 
claimed in its vindication are forcibly presented, and no refer- 
erence is made to any denial of those facts or counter-state- 
ments. 

In the next section (3), what the author calls " Northern 
views," are professed to be given, but upon inspection they 
will be found to bear exclusively upon the question of consti- 
tutional km, without reference to any of the controverted /rtcfe 
in the case. 

It will thus be seen that a strong point is made at the outset 
in behalf of the cause which the author is observed to be 
already making his own, and in Sec. 4, page 227, authority is 
referred to in order to sustain it. 

In Sec. 5, by means of a pathetic and glowing diction, the 
cause is painted in attractive colors, and impressively com- 
mended to the interest and sympathy of the young. 

In Sees. 6 and 7, the antagonistic cause is inadequately pre- 
sented, a series of facts and circumstances necessary to its 
comprehension omitted, and in this deformed shape it is pre- 
sented to excite the aversion and prejudice of the young. 

In Sec. 8, the writer assumes a controverted fact, and thus 
unequivocally places himself upon one side of the controversy. 
That the actual figures are given in a subsequent chapter (Ch. 
30, Sec. 5, page 257) from which (and also from Sec. 16 on 
page 268) a careful student might draw an inference inconsis- 



17 

tent with the assumption in question, only shows judicious 
arrangement. The impression made by Sec. 8, page 228, is 
distinct and complete in itself, that the people of Maryland 
were from the first identified with the cause of secession. 

In Sec. 9, " invasion " is the term applied to the anticipated 
arrival of the "Northern forces." If it be said that the 
writer in this section is considering a merely hypothetical case, 
contingent upon the contemplated secession of the State, it 
will appear by reference to Sec. 29 on page 236, and Sec. 13 
on page 274, that the terms "invaders" and "aliens " are used 
to characterize the Union forces when actually present. 

In Sec. 10, the doctrine of secession is distinctly presented 
as a " natural and constitutional right," and " the people of 
this State," without any exception, represented as believing it. 

In Sec. 11, the exception to the unqualified terms of Sec. 10 
is separated from the main proposition which it should have 
accompanied and qualified, and assigned an inferior position. 
With respect to this exception, it is to be noted — 1st, That it 
is itself an assumption of a controverted fact, and open to the 
same observations already made on Sec. 8. 2d, That it is 
couched in such language as to make the attitude of the " not 
inconsiderable minority" appear odious and offensive, in con- 
nection with the impression in favor of secession already made 
by the language of the previous sections. 

Section 12 is candid and fair down to the last sentence, 
which broadly claims the city of Baltimore, together with the 
southern counties, as a unit in favor of the initial movement 
towards secession. 

In Sec. 28, as well as in the sections intervening between 12 
and 28, the people of Baltimore without exception are identi- 
fied with the riot of the 19th April, 1861. 

The same section (28) is also remarkable for the oblique, 
but emphatic manner in which the writer again distinctly in- 
culcates the doctrine of secession as a "sovereign right," and 
arraigns the "Acts of the Federal Government " as aggressive, 
tyrannical and a usurpation of power subversive alike to politi- 
cal and personal liberty. 

The concluding paragraph of the section shows an effort, 
doubtless sincere, on the part of the writer, to maintain his 
balance by dealing candidly with "each side," but as he con- 
fined his view exclusively to the legal aspect of the case, this 
paragraph is open to the same observation already made in 
section 3. 



18 

In Sec. 29, the doctrine of secession is again distinctly incul- 
cated, and the people of Maryland generally again claimed in 
its support. 

Assuming to pronounce the verdict of tiie State, the author 
in its name charges the purpose of the Government to be one 
of "subjugation and conquest," and denounces the Government 
troops in sensational language which to the minds of school 
children can convey no idea but that those troops were mur- 
derers. 

The impression distinctly aimed to be produced upon the 
young mind by the whole chapter, may bo thus summed up: 

1. Secession was a constitutional right. 

2. The people of Maryland advocated it. 

3. They were only kept from exercising it by fear of danger. 
Incredible as it may seem, the succeeding chapters contain 

nothing to show that if secession was a constitutional right in 
1861, it is not equally constitutional now. So far as the book 
teaches anything, it teaches the doctrine of secession as a pre- 
sent subsisting constitutional right, and as such commends it 
to the belief and adoption of the pupils in the Public Schools. 
The only cause to the contrary shown is in the text of the 
present Constitution of Maryland printed bodily in the Appen- 
dix, and the special reference to the 2d article of the Declara- 
tion of Rights in Sec. 15, on p. 286, taken in connection with 
the views expressed in Sec. 5, pp. 276-7, indicates that in the 
mind of the author the right of secession, even under the Con- 
stitution of 1867, is still an open question in this State. 

It will scarcely be deemed necessary to canvass separately 
each section of the succeeding chapters. They are throughout 
consistent with the one already reviewed, in tone, spirit, color- 
ing and effect. A broad foundation having been laid by estab- 
lishing the constitutional right of secession as a question of law, 
and the advocacy of it by the people of Maryland as a question 
of fact, each step in the struggle for power or existence is 
treated from that stand-point exclusively. 

The aim and effort of these chapters is an arraignment of the 
Government and of the party which supported it, at the bar 
of the Public Schools. 

It has been claimed in vindication of the work that the 
facts it contains are true. 

The answer to this is, that the material facts it omits are 
also true, and a book which gives only the facts of one side is 
a one-sided book. 

It is characteristic of all wars, and especially of all civil wars, 



19 

that the case of either party consists mainly in an accusation 
of the opposite party. 

As both parties are made up of individuals who are fallible 
because human, it rarely happens that all the right is on one 
side and all the wrong on the other. It is usually the 
case in such quarrels that the right and wrong of the con- 
troversy are mixed, so mixed indeed that honest and well- 
meaning people are often very much perplexed to decide 
between them, as unable to determine upon which side the 
balance of right or wrong preponderates. 

The most cursory perusal of the history of the civil war as 
told in the book now in question, discloses a case altogether 
unprecedented and anomalous, of a civil war in which all the 
right was on one side and only unmixed wrong on the other. 
Not only so, but it discloses a case of a war in which the 
party represented as aggressive did not even pretend to prefer 
any charge or accusation against the other, excepting only that 
of the lawful exercise of a constitutional right upon valid, and, 
so far as appears, conceded grounds in point of fact. 

In the author's treatment of the party opposed to him and 
of the Union officers and soldiers, especially those of Mary- 
laud, the evidences of bias are perhaps more numerous and 
striking than in any other part of the work. It is here that 
the historian's privilege of selection, omission and arrangement 
has been availed of most liberally to instil prejudice, and to 
accomplish this end many important facts, material to the 
truth of history, have been either slighted or actually sup- 
pressed. 

Proofs and illustrations of this will at once occur to any 
well-informed reader of the book. Some of the more striking 
instances will be selected. 

The reputation of Reverdy Johnson as a jurist and states- 
man may be said not to need the endorsement of this work to 
perpetuate his memory with the bar and people of Maryland. 
But to the children of our Public Schools who are given this 
work to learn as containing all that is deemed of importance 
for them to know about the public men of our State, and 
whose memory it seeks to burden with a large number of 
names as figuring in Maryland history, more or less distin- 
guished or obscure, it seems hardly fiiir that they should have 
wholly kept from them the fact that such a man as Reverdy 
Johnson ever existed, to shed lustre upon the bar of his native 
State, and after representing her in the National Senate and 
Cabinet to accept a seat in the lower house of her Legislature 



20 

in a time of public emergency. Incredible as it may seem, 
however, the name of Reverdy Johnson is never once so 
much us mentioned, whether as lawyer, Attorney General, 
Senator, or Foreign Minister, in a book which professes to 
teach the Public Schools all that is worth knowing of the con- 
spicuous characters of Maryland history, and which has 
immortalized the names of " Messrs. Yellott, of Baltimore 
City; Lynch, of Baltimore County;" " Thos. H. Gardner, 
Clerk of the Criminal Court ; Col. Thomas R. Rich, aid to 
the Governor ; Alfred Evans and Thomas Sewell." Pp. 249, 
262. 

By joint resolution of the General Assembly of Maryland 
in 1849, the thanks of his native State were tendered to Major 
John R. Kenly, " for distinguished gallantry displayed in the 
field during the recent war with Mexico," and by joint resolu- 
tion passed in 1862, the thanks of the State were again 
tendered to General Kenly for "his early, prompt and distin- 
guished services in the cause of his country." 

It will scarcely be believed, even after what has already 
been said, that the officer whose military record had thus been 
made the property of the State, has been virtually cashiered 
by a political opponent in the name of History, his name sup- 
pressed in that connection in whicli it was entitled to appear 
with honor (see Sec. 20, p. 220), and a mere incident of his 
later military career in obedience to orders singled out for the 
evident purpose of holding him up to the odium which the 
writer has studiously thrown around the position of the Federal 
Provost Marshal. (Sec. 6, p. 252 ; Sec. 10, p. 254.) 

In Sec. 10, p. 260, a handsome and well-merited compliment 
is offered to the soldierly qualities of the Confederate army 
which followed General Lee into Maryland, in September, 
1862, the words of commendation being quoted from and credi- 
ted to a Northern source, ending as follows : " If enduring 
great hardships without a murmur, and most bravely and 
heroically fighting, are evidences of good soldiers, seldom has 
the world witnessed better than those who composed the army 
of General Lee." 

No exception can be taken to this tribute, either on the 
ground of truth or propriety. An impartial historian, how- 
ever, would be found doing equal justice to both sides. He 
^youl(l not, at least, while taking proper occasion to laud one 
side, embrace every opportunity to disparage the other. The 
idea of the Union officers and soldiers, and especially those of 
Maryland, which this book offers to the children is very much 



21 

the same as the impression which would be conveyed of the 
Southern army by a prejudiced writer, who should ignore its 
field record entirely, and detail minutely the transactions of 
home guards and provost marshals in the rear. 

See Sec. 26, p. 235, Sec. 29, p. 236, Sec. 3, p. 256, Sec. 6, 
p. 257, Sec. 14, p. 268, Sec. 18, p. 269. 

It is in fact one of the remarkable features of this work that 
it takes no notice whatever of the part enacted on the theatre 
of actual war by the soldiers of Maryland on either side. It 
is nowhere so much as mentioned that Maryland was repre- 
sented on any named field of battle, either under the stars and 
stripes or the stars and bars. In thus ignoring the military 
record made for Maryland by her sons under both the oppo- 
sing flags, the writer may be said to have impartially sup- 
pressed them all. But the book could have been easily 
enlivened by many spirited touches of real history and a 
more healthy and invigorating tone imparted to it, if the young 
minds for whom it is designed had been sometimes relieved 
from contemplating the envenomed feuds of factions chafing 
against each other in civil strife, and inspired with something of 
the devotion which actuated those sons of the State who lost or 
hazarded life and limb for the sake of principle upon opposite 
sides in the most colossal civil war recorded in history. 

Upon ordinary principles of interpretation, which require 
that the meaning of a passage should be gathered from the 
whole context taken together, the language used in Sec. 6, p. 
49, is susceptible of a construction which would place Jews and 
Unitarians outside the pale of religious toleration. If such was 
not the intention of the author, the language should be so mod- 
ified as to exclude tlie construction indicated. 

The main objection, however, on the score of sectarianism, 
refers to Sec. 3, p. 25, Sec. 16, p. 29, and Sec. 21, p. 31, and 
rather to what is omitted than to what is stated. In wholly 
keeping out of view the point made by McMahon in his His- 
tory of Maryland, pp. 243, 244, a biased view is presented, 
unfairly discriminating in favor of one sect as against all 
others ; an impression strengthened by the allusions in Sec. 3, 
p. 14, Sec. 3, p. 25, Sec. 21, p. 31, and Sees. 4, 5 and 6, p. 65. 

6th March, 1877. Ch. E. Tiielps. 

The majority report was accepted and resolution adopted. 

March 27th. Mr. Griffith ofi'cred a resolution looldng to 
the reading of the History of Maryland in the schools. 

The President ruled that the resolution cannot be enter- 
tained without a reconsideration of the previous action of the 
Board. 



22 

April 10th. The President presented a communication from 
J. Murphy & Co., concerning History of Maryland, which, 
on motion of Mr. Griffith, was referred to the Committee on 
Books. 

April 17th. The President presented a communication from 
J. Thos. Scharf on the History of Maryland, which was read, 
and, on motion of Mr. Murray, referred to the Committee on 
Books. 

Same date. Mr. Hamel presented the following report : 

To the President and Board of Commissioners of Public Schools: 
The Committee on Text- Books, to whom was referred the 
communication of Messrs. J. Murphy & Co., submitting the 
revised Edition of Onderdonk^s History of Maryland, find 
upon examination the objectionable matter expurgated and in 
conformity of the State Law ; they therefore offer the following 
resolution. Respectfully submitted, 

G. L. Hamel, 
C. E, Phelps, 
John P. Poe, 
Wm. p. Tonry, 
Henry E. Shepherd, 
Jno. T. Morris, 
"William C. Atkinson. 

Resolved, That the revised Edition of OnderdonFs His- 
tory of 3Iaryland, submitted to the Board on the 10th inst. by 
Messrs. J. Murphy & Co., Publishers, be, and the same is hereby 
ordered to be used under the direction of the Superintendent, 
in conformity with the resolution passed Jan. 30, 1877 ; pro- 
vided, that nothing herein shall prevent the adof)tion at any 
future time, of any other History of Maryland that the Board 
may see proper to adopt. 

Mr. Wright moved that the consideration of the resolution 
be postponed one week, which motion was adopted. 

April 24th. The report of the Committee on Books sub- 
mitted at the last meeting, relating to the History of Maryland^ 
was taken up. 

Mr. Dalrymple offered the following amendment to the reso- 
lution of the committee, viz. : 

" Provided the same can be done without additional cost dur- 
ing the present scholastic year." 

Mr. Murray said : 

Mr. President : — At the meeting of this Board held on 
March 6th, of this year, the Committee on Books reported 



against the use of the Historij of Maryland as abridged by 
Onderdonk in our Public Schools, on the ground that it was 
obnoxious to the wise provisions of the State law of 1872, 
chap. 377, which forbids the adoption of any book of a secta- 
rian or partisan character for use in the schools. Wc all 
remember the able manner in which the gentleman from the 
Twelfth ward (Gen. Phelps) argued that the book under dis- 
cussion was excluded under the statute, and without a dissent- 
ing voice the Board decided that it should not be used. But, 
did the Board intend to say that no history of our late unhappy 
and fratricidal war should be read in our schools ? Did the 
Board intend to say that the children of our schools should be 
kept in ignorance of the stirring events which marked that 
most eventful period ? 

That we did right in excluding Onderdonk's history of the 
war there can be no question in the minds of all reasonable 
men, because, if we had had the ler/al right to adopt a history 
which was so strongly marked by the political bias of the 
author, we had no moral right to order the use of such a book 
in an institution supported and patronized by people who are 
divided between the two great political parties of the country. 

I believe, Mr. President, and I am hap])y to believe it, that 
this Board is sufficiently generous and considerate of the 
rights of all persons to have excluded that history, even though 
we had possessed the legal right to order its use. We have 
proven conclusively our ability to rise above political and par- 
tisan consideration, but I ask again, have we, by that act, de- 
cided that we will have no history of the war ? That can be 
decided only by a vote on the report and resolution of the 
Committee on Books, now under discussion; but for myself 
(and from conversation had with several members present I 
know I am not alone), I can say that in casting ray vote 
against Ouderdonk's history of the war, I did not intend to 
vote against a fair and impartial history of that era. I am 
opposed, unalterably opposed, to the use of any book purport- 
ing to be a history of Maryland which omits all reference to 
tlie war. There never was a time in the iiistory of this coun- 
try in which more important and more stirring events occurred 
than during the years 1861-'65 ; and even since 1865 import- 
ant events have become history. And shall we have in our 
schools a so-called history of Maryland which takes no notice 
of events affecting our social, our commercial and our political 
economy, with which the last sixteen years are crowded? 



24 

Why may not one secure a history of Maryland from 1861 
down to the present time whicli will be a fair and an impartial 
statement of facts as they have occurred, without any com- 
ments of the author? Surely, sir, this is but a reasonable 
claim. But if we adopt the resolution of our most excellent 
Committee on Books, we decide that it is not a reasonable 
claim. Hence, T am opposed to the resolution. 

But it may be said, in reply to this point, that even if the 
resolution is adopted, it expressly declares that it contains 
nothing which shall prevent the Board adopting any other 
book at any time, if it should be deemed advisable. Well, 
sir, of course it imposes no legal restraint on the Board, as it 
proposes no definite time during which we are to use the book ; 
but I maintain, nevertheless, that the adoption of this resolu- 
tion will be virtually a decision against the use of any history 
of the civil war. 

There is an old saying, familiar to us all, that " possession is 
nine points of the law," and I would respectfully forewarn 
every member who wishes an impartial history of the war to 
be used in our schools, that he voted against any history by 
voting for the introduction of Onderdonk's book. It Avill cost 
a great many thousands of dollars (how many I am not pre- 
pared to say) to introduce the book, and if we should wish to 
make a change at any time, the press would teem with charges 
of extravagance (at 20 cents a line), and it would be decried 
as a most unwarrantable and unnecessary waste of the public 
funds. And the charge would be true; but the responsibility, 
if placed where it properly belonged, would lie with those who 
vote for the book, if so be that it is adopted. 

But, in the second place, Mr. President, I am opposed to the 
resolution of the Book Committee, not only because if adopted 
it shuts out all history of the war, but also because the book 
whicli it is proposed to adopt is not a suitable one for use in 
our Public Schools. To mention some of its minor defects : 
First, the binding is not durable; the paper is not excellent; 
the type is none of the best; and the illustrations are very 
few in number, some of them entirely false, and all of them 
most horribly executed. The portraits of Cecil Calvert and 
Leonard Calvert, on pages 21 and 24, respectively, are purely 
imaginary, by the artist's own confession, and if this were not 
sufficient, the proof lies in the fact that there are no portraits 
of them extant. 

Let anyone look at the illustration on page 213, and say if 
he could get the most remote idea of what it is intended to be, 
until he reads under it, " Bombardment of Fort McHenry." 



But I bring a graver charge yet against the book : that of 
inaccuracy in many of its statements of facts, and errors in 
dates. 

On the 6th of March the Committee on Books made a report 
to the Board from which ihe following is an extract : — "Since 
the subject has been pending before the Committee two commu- 
nications have been referred to it, one from Col. Scharf, author 
of The Chronicles of Baltimore, offering for adoption a history 
of Maryland now in preparation by him under the patron- 
age of the Legislature of the State, and one from Mr. Onder- 
douk and Mr. Murphy, jointly, offering to revise the Compen- 
dium in question, and to issue a new edition for the use of the 
schools. The Committee are of opinion that it would be pre- 
mature and inexpedient to attempt to decide in advance between 
the two contemplated publications, and that such decision can 
only be properly made when they shall have been so far ad- 
vanced toward completion as to enable an intelligent judgment 
to be based upon their comparative merits." 

Now, Mr. President, the Committee knew on the 6th of 
March what Onderdonk's abridgement would be with the his- 
tory of the war expurgated, as well as they now know what it 
is since that has been done. They had not one particle more 
of information in their possession on the 17th April than they 
had on March 6th, which would enable them to form "an 
intelligent judgment based upon the comparative iiierits " of 
the two books. If it " were premature and inexpedient" then 
" to attempt to decide in advance between the two contemplated 
publications," I ask how the Committee can consistently de- 
clare that it is not premature and not inexpedient to decide the 
point noii\ since one of the " contemplated publications " is 
still in coi-itemplation only, and the other, if already completed, 
is simply what it was before, except that the part which relates 
to the war has been omitted. What great necessity has arisen, 
since it was found that another history was to compete with 
Onderdonk's, that the schools should be supplied with a his- 
tory immediately ? We have done without it for a long time; 
what need then is there of haste to rush this matter through 
on the very tail-end of the school session? Surely, there can 
be none; there is not an interest that will suffer by delay. 

I ask for the adoption of no particular book. I only ask 
tiiat time may be given that we may get the i)est, whichever 
and whosever it may prove to be. 

I therefore offer the following resolution as a substitute for 
the report of the Committee, merely remarking that it only 



26 

asks for what the Committee and tlie Board on Marcli 6th 
decided was right, proper, and for the best interests of tiic 
schools : 

" Resolved, That the question as to what history shall be 
introduced into the Public Schools be referred back to the 
Committee on Books, with instructions to report to the Board 
only after they have complied with the recommendations made 
by them and unanimously adopted by the Board on March 
6th, 1877. 

Mr. Bernei moved to postpone the consideration of the sub- 
ject one week, which was rejected. 

The question was called on Mr. Murray's substitute, and it 
was rejected by ayes 9, nays 9, as follows : 

Ayes — Messrs. Dalrymple, Bernei, Hancock, Sinclair, Law- 
ton, Ferry, Wright, Deale, and Murray. 

Nays — Messrs. President, Hamel, Ives, Toury, Piaskitt, 
Poe, Phelps, Griffith, and Ramsburg. 

The question recurred on the amendment of Dr. Dalrymple, 
and it was declared rejected. 

The question then recurred on the adoption of the resolution 
annexed to the report of the committee, and the ayes and nays 
being called, resulted as follows : 

Ayes — Messrs. President, Hamel, Bernei, Tonry, Piaskitt, 
Poe, Phelps, Lawton, Griffith, and Ramsburg — 10. 

Nays — Messrs. Dalrymple, Ives, Hancock, Sinclair, Ferry, 
Wright, Deale, and Murray — 8. 

Messrs. Atkinson and Roemer absent. 

The resolution was declared adopted. 



X 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



11 Illllllilllllllllllilllllllllllllllill 

014 434 341 4 ^ 



"m 



